| Research objectives:(1)compare the effects of two different drug delivery approaches on different types of sudden deafness;(2)to provide reference for the rational selection of hormone therapy for sudden deafness.Methods:Choose between September 2015 and September 2017 medical university,dalian medical university first hospital otolaryngology clinical data of diagnosis of sudden deafness perfect one sick,270 patients for the first time,according to the patients admitted to hospital when hearing curve according to the diagnosis and treatment of sudden deafness guide(2015)into(1)low frequency descent type(2)the high frequency type(3)a flat type(4)total deafness type [1],according to each type of hormone drug delivery methods in the process of treatment patients can be divided into different oral prednisone acetate group and ear after subperiosteal injection of methyl prednisolone sodium succinate groups;In each type of patients,except for the hormone treatment methods,the other treatments were the same.Statistical analysis was conducted on the average increase in decibel number(PTA)of hearing of each type of patients after hormone treatment and the effective rate after hormone treatment using statistical software.Results:1.Statistics of patients' treatment efficiency1.1 low-frequency decline: the hearing recovery rate was 78.41% and the total effective rate was 89.77% in the oral hormone group.The rate of hearing recovery was 65.38%and the total effective rate was 88.46%.The inter-group effective rate was tested by Fisher's exact test(P = 1.000 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.1.2 flatness: the rate of hearing recovery was 39.29% in oral hormone group,and the total effective rate was 64.29%.The rate of hearing recovery was 33.33% and the total effective rate was 57.14%.The inter-group effective rate was tested by Fisher's exact test(P = 0.604 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.1.3 total deafness: the hearing recovery rate was 16.67% and the total effective rate was50.00% in the oral hormone group.The rate of hearing recovery was 18.18% and the total effective rate was 90.90%.The inter-group effective rate was tested by Fisher's exact test(P = 0.027 < 0.05).There were statistical differences.1.4 high-frequency decline: the hearing recovery rate was 40.00% in the oral hormone group,and the total effective rate was 63.33%.The rate of hearing recovery was 21.43%and the total effective rate was 64.29%.Intergroup efficiency.Fisher's exact test was performed(P = 1.000 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.1.5 in all patients,the rate of hearing recovery in oral hormone group was 54.04%,and the total effective rate was 73.73%.The rate of hearing recovery was 40.28% and the total effective rate was 75.00%.Chi-square test was performed for the intergroup effective rate(P = 0.834 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.2.Average PTA improvement after treatment2.1 low-frequency decline type: the average PTA improvement value of patients in the oral hormone group was 19.909 9.1847 d B;The average PTA improvement was 21.192±10.0041 d B(T=0.613,p=0.541 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.2.2 flatness: the average PTA improvement value of patients in the oral hormone group was 18.786±14.4067 d B;The average PTA improvement was 19.381±15.1012 d B(T=0.159,p=0.874 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.2.3 total deafness: the average PTA improvement value of patients in the oral hormone group was 31.417±27.4017 d B;The average PTA improvement was 42.636±18.8270 d B(T=1.408,p=0.17 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.2.4 high-frequency descending type: the average PTA improvement value of patients in the oral hormone group was 16.333±12.8903 d B;The average PTA improvement was18.429±14.2156 d B(T=0.486,p=0.629 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.2.5 all patients: the average PTA improvement value of patients in the oral hormone group was 20.444±15.0159 d B;The average PTA improvement was 23.403±15.9742 d B(T=-1.407,p=0.161 > 0.05).There was no significant statistical difference.Conclusion:(1)There was no significant difference between the effect of glucocorticoid injection and oral therapy for sudden deafness;(2)patients with absolute contraindications to oral hormones can choose posterior ear injection as an alternative treatment;... |
PDF Full Text Request